There might be some cases where it makes sense. Think about stupidly extreme sports (SES) for example. If someone organises a SES event for you, it might be reasonable for you to have an agreement that says they checked everything they could and you were informed about everything you should. But you shouldn't be able to sue them when you get hurt, since you knew from the beginning the whole thing will be dangerous. It doesn't have to be SES to apply this logic to some extent however. Every time I go kayaking on an artificial course I sign some "I'm aware this is dangerous and I want to do it anyway" papers. I'm sure those papers would be the first thing presented in court if I wanted to sue the organisers for breaking some bones. It's not giving up my rights really, but has almost the same effect in a limited scope.
> But you shouldn't be able to sue them when you get hurt, since you knew from the beginning the whole thing will be dangerous.
Why not? Just because you sue them doesn't mean you're going to win. Maybe stupidly extreme sports purposely made the event more dangerous to ensure your injuries (and subsequent ratings). Signing away your right to sue puts you in an almost infinitely dangerous position.
If that is the case, any business that provides any activity that is remotely dangerous would not be able to stay in business without the huge overhead of a powerful legal team backing it. Consider skydiving, watersports, or even karting.
The high cost of frivolous legal defense is a completely separate issue. It should not be the basis for denying the right to sue. If someone is injured skydiving, it should up to a court to decide if that was a reasonable expectation or if there was negligence on the part of the business. The court shouldn't need to take months and tens of thousands of dollars to make such a determination.
